Friendly and intelligent discussion about politics and other controversial topics takes place here. No rules yet. Enter at your own risk. You must request to join "controversy" user group to use this forum.

gnossos wrote:They didn't attack first depending upon the definition of "attack". 9-11 wasn't the start of our involvement in the Middle East, Derick is right. We've been screwing them, hard, for a long time. This gives me no sympathy for their actions but it might be a bit of a heads up that propping up dictators isn't always the best idea...

I agree, gnossos.We citizens of the "Western World" cannot expect to meddle in the running of other peoples' countries, often to their detriment and our benefit, without them getting angry and attempting to fight us in whatever way they can. What happened on 11th September 2001 was an atrocity, but it was also a retaliatory action. I know that this isn't a popular opinion with those who like to believe that they're "on the good side" and that their enemies are "on the bad side", but that doesn't stop it being my opinion.Oh, and the torturing of prisoners is never the right thing to do; it is something to be deeply, deeply ashamed of.

Hermit wrote:So, it was a bad thing, but we had it coming, right?Bullshit!You dredge up a year old thread for that?Bullshit!

BTW, we never "tortured" anybody.More Bullshit!!

Yes, I believe it was a bad thing. No, I do not believe anybody "had it coming".But I do believe that the nature of the universe is one of cause and effect. Nothing happens without a reason.And I believe that there is overwhelming evidence that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been tortured.These are my beliefs, and I am entitled to them, just as you are entitled to believe that my opinions are "bullsh*t". It does not anger me that you disagree with me.

In the interests of harmony, can I suggest we leave it at that gentlemen. I'm not locking the thread because there may be more interesting stuff to come, but can we please ensure the debate remains civil?

I'm new here, and I hope I'm not out of line, but I think there's something left unsaid in this debate and that I can say it in a civil manner. Primarily, I think calling this a war gives the terrorists a legitimacy which they do not deserve. Being a soldier is a noble thing, donning a uniform and fighting and dying for one's country Whether they're North Vietnamese soldiers or Imperial Japanese soldiers, answering your nation's call out of love of country is an honorable thing.

Killing in the name of God isn't. People who love and trust in God know the way to change the world is to peacefully protest colonial rule in India or give speeches and write letters from jail in Selma, Alabama or to organize labor strikes in Poland. Despite the obvious contradiction in the phrase, "Killing in the name of God", history tells us that there's a better way.

Then we have these guys...ignorant of history and of what the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims know to be true...that truth and peaceful resistance always wins the day.

I'm not particularly worried about the rights of these murderers, I'm more concerned about what we lose when we deny them their day in court. We lose the rightous knowledge that our Constitution and Bill of Rights, which have served as a model for scores of nations since it was written, is still the most just and effective way for human beings to deal with one another.

I think they like seeing us scared and confused and arguing about what to do next, rather than looking to our existing laws and constitution to determine the next indicated thing to do. Some say that they hate us for our freedom. I tend to think they hate us for our foreign policy, but I do think they resent the fact that we have an open and civil society.

That being the case, and if this is a war, wouldn't defeat be defined as causing us to abandon our Bill of Rights in the face of heinous criminal action? What is it when we say these criminals are so bad and so well organized that the U.S Constitution which has worked so well for our first 235 years isn't enough to deal with with such super-criminals?

I say we win the war on terror by not giving in. Laws have already been changed to give us the tools to fight this war... the USAPATRIOT Act, much of which I don't agree with, certainly gives us what we need to fight terrorism...just like the RICO Act in the 1960's helped fight the Mafia. What better victory than sending these thugs to their maker by way of the American justice system some say they hope to replace with Sharia law? I think victory is treating even uncommon criminals as criminals and leaving our constitution and way of life intact.

I realize some people will disagree, and if I've offended anyone, I apologize, that was not my intention. I simply think this is a point in this argument which needed to be voiced.

I would like to thank the good people at Von Eiken's for providing their Springwater Exotic Cut which aided me in the writing of this piece.

Last edited by HappySquareHead on Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Calvin

I want to say, in all seriousness, that a great deal of harm is being done in the modern world by the belief in the virtuousness of work, and that the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work.Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness

I'am very new here too, but this topic is why I signed on so here it goes. We will take no prisoners if you are on the battle field you will die or run to fight another day. If you are caught on american soil you will be tried and hung by u.s. law. As for gitmo you will be sent back to the country you were captured in and released to fight it out-- good luck!

ERNEST1T wrote:I'am very new here too, but this topic is why I signed on so here it goes...

Hi ERNEST1T. Glad to have your input. Might I please ask for some clarification so that I and others can better understand your opinion

...We will take no prisoners if you are on the battle field you will die or run to fight another day...

What do you mean by the words "we", "you" and "battle field", here? Also, do you mean "We will take no prisoners if you are on the battlefield; you will die, or run to fight another day.", or "We will take no prisoners; if you are on the battlefield, you will die, or run to fight another day."? One reason that I find it good practice to use punctuation is that it can often alter the way a sentence is read by others, and thus, change the meaning they are most likely to take from it

...If you are caught on american soil you will be tried and hung by u.s. law...

By "american soil", I'm assuming that you mean "territory legally owned by the United States of America". Is this assumption correct? And, even if you are using "hung" in a metaphorical sense to mean "punished", surely any need for punishment would first have to be determined by the trial?

...As for gitmo you will be sent back to the country you were captured in and released to fight it out-- good luck!

I'm afraid I, for one, can make no sense out of this sentence whatsoever! What is "gitmo"?I hope you don't think that I'm being obtuse. I am simply interested to understand your meaning. Thanks

ewlewis wrote:"Gitmo" is a shortened name for Guantonomo (sp?) Bay, a prison that hold Prisoners of War for the American Military. Currently it holds many al Qeada members and it is located in Cuba.

Ah! Thank you, ewlewis I am now wondering if those same prisoners of war have been determined to be members of "al-Qaeda" through means of a fair trial, or if it has simply been decided that they are members of "al-Qaeda" by the United States Military. I suspect I might already know the answer...

Last edited by KevLa on Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ruraldean wrote:In the interests of harmony, can I suggest we leave it at that gentlemen. I'm not locking the thread because there may be more interesting stuff to come, but can we please ensure the debate remains civil?

Puff in peace lads, puff in peace.

I agree Paul. It may indeed be an idea to lock this thread and start another less contentious debate. Maybe religion?

Hi kevla, and thanks for the welcome.Let me start with i'am very poor at punctuation and spelling for that matter espeacily when ranting at a keyboard.I can't even figure out how to make a new paragragh on this damn thing.So you- any person engaging in battle with u.s. troops.We -u.s. troops.And no i'am not one.Battlefield-any place in Iraq, afganistan ;or other place persons may fire on or engage said u.s. troops making hence a battlefield.American soil you are correct sir.And by hung, yes you are correct again I meant tried and punished.I don't believe alqada hates western culture at all I believe they hate christians and infidels.I also beleive if a fine diplomatic man were to go and talk to them they would waste no time in taking him hostage and cutting his head off.

ERNEST1T wrote:Hi kevla, and thanks for the welcome.Let me start with i'am very poor at punctuation and spelling for that matter espeacily when ranting at a keyboard.I can't even figure out how to make a new paragragh on this damn thing.So you- any person engaging in battle with u.s. troops.We -u.s. troops.And no i'am not one.Battlefield-any place in Iraq, afganistan ;or other place persons may fire on or engage said u.s. troops making hence a battlefield.American soil you are correct sir.And by hung, yes you are correct again I meant tried and punished.I don't believe alqada hates western culture at all I believe they hate christians and infidels.I also beleive if a fine diplomatic man were to go and talk to them they would waste no time in taking him hostage and cutting his head off.

Thanks very much for the clarification, sir. Your beliefs are now much clearer to me. In your opinion, do battlefields have to be in a country that is not part of the United States? What if the enemy were to make their attack upon U.S. soil? If this were not counted as a battlefield by U.S. citizens and/or military personnel, would foreign citizens and/or military personnel not be entitled to think of U.S. attacks on their soil as not taking place on a battlefield?And in view of the danger of beheading, might it be useful to seek diplomatic solutions without actually going to see them? If we have a whole bunch of potential al-Qaeda members sat in Guantanomo Bay, could we put one of them on trial and, if finding him guilty of being a member of al-Qaeda (but not guilty of killing anyone), send him with a diplomatic message for the al-Qaeda leadership, instead? Mind you, I suppose that they might feel that they have already been mistreated by their captors. If that were the case, I would think that any chance of using them as diplomatic messengers would've sadly already been lost.And, I suppose there's no way we're ever going to invite diplomatic measures by the opposition if all we do is throw them in jail upon arrival, without a trial, and then maybe torture them.I believe I'm right in saying that a very popular principle among Christians (and many non-Christians such as myself) goes something like this:-Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.PS. If I may, if and when you wish to start a new paragraph, simply tap the 'Enter' key (the one on the far right of the keyboard, which sometimes merely shows an arrow bending down and to the left). I hope my suggestion is of use to you

Thanks for the info Kevla, I was trying to use the tab key.Let me pre-face by saying this is a never ending debate.There are far to many opions in this world, the world will never stand as one and sing koom-by ya. I respect all opion even if it is wrong I will try and refrain from using the word "battlefield" it seems you are hung-up on that.I can only assume because this is an undecleared war.Hence part of the problem,I believe the u.s. senate should have decleared war on Afgaistan. No afganistan did not attack on 9-11 but did make it possible for alqada to flourish in that country. The u.s. did not go to the middle east and hold a gun to anybodys head if you don't care for your leaders dealing with us elect new leaders and kick us out.(of course i'am talking way back when they thought it would be good to get rich off us buying thier oil.)As for diplomacy with alqada what do they want they represent no country that i'am aware of they have nothing to offer what are they after? they want western civilization out of the middle east. So what we pack up mcdonalds,burger king and pizza hut.If they have a problem it is with thier leaders who are dealing with our leaders.As for the criminal trails I can only say I believe most if not all of these guy were captured in Afganistan. Since there is no decleared war and they represent no country they should have nver been taken POW.I can only say had I been president at the time my standing order would have been no prisoners.If you are fired upon kill them all.Key phrase here fired upon.O.K. so thier here now what ? Take them back release them and hope they shoot at you again and you kill them. I know thats not good it could back fire on us but we screwwed up.

ruraldean wrote:In the interests of harmony, can I suggest we leave it at that gentlemen. I'm not locking the thread because there may be more interesting stuff to come, but can we please ensure the debate remains civil?

Puff in peace lads, puff in peace.

I agree Paul. It may indeed be an idea to lock this thread and start another less contentious debate. Maybe religion?

Regards, Jim

There's always a reluctance from this end to lock a thread Jim, as the forum was founded on the basis of allowing certain freedoms that were unavailable on some other forums. Healthy debate is always encouraged here, but abuse WILL result in either a locked thread or worse. As long as tempers remain cool there won't be a problem.

So far so good, but if you spot any abuse we miss then please use the report button. Cheers matey.